Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2017 - 05:32pm PT
|
What are YOUR thoughts and feelings? Got any you can call your own on the matter?
Yes. You should be able to make a good guess. I can't tell you any more than I can say the taste of sugar, to put in it terms of your own.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2017 - 07:18pm PT
|
Sure.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2017 - 07:23pm PT
|
Sycorax:
I can see that you’re not a believer. You’re analytical.
It matters to see what these people are talking about. I emphasize “see.”
Blake was “seeing.”
If you don't see what the poet saw, what are you saying?
Be well.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2017 - 07:38pm PT
|
If you don't see what the poet saw, what are you saying?
Did you see what the poet saw?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2017 - 07:58pm PT
|
Blake was “seeing.” If you don't see what the poet saw, what are you saying?
Yes, how did you manage to secrete yourself in that tiny space between Blake's ears? Your confidence is inspiring.
What has become of the Wizard?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 - 08:16am PT
|
I'm merely trying to say that poetry is not scientific description. It presents a kind of seeing that can't be logically articulated into a single thing. I'm not sure I should say that poetry (and much prose) is the opposite or antithetical to scientific (logical, rational, definitive) description, but they do not seem to be in the same domain. Hence (and here I will briefly genuflect), an analysis of non-logical, non-rational, non-definitive expressions can sometimes be like attempting to put a square peg into a round hole. At least I mean that cross-purposes should be noted.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 - 08:23am PT
|
I'm merely trying to say that poetry is not scientific description. It presents a kind of seeing that can't be logically articulated into a single thing. I'm not sure I should say that poetry (and much prose) is the opposite or antithetical to scientific (logical, rational, definitive) description, but they do not seem to be in the same domain. Hence (and here I will briefly genuflect), an analysis of non-logical, non-rational, non-definitive expressions can sometimes be like attempting to put a square peg into a round hole. At least I mean that cross-purposes should be noted.
Mike:
When you begin writing stuff like this, do you plan out how you are going to end up being committed to nothing?
(eye roller)
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 - 08:39am PT
|
The wolf is wearing sheepskin and the lamb has fangs...
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 - 03:35pm PT
|
William Blake's "The Tyger": An Encounter with Sublimity
"Terror, in the eighteenth century, was commonly considered the highest manifestation of sublimity"
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2017 - 08:56pm PT
|
While trashing today I came on a 1000 page book written by an Indian (with facial hair). I don't handle those names well but figured since it was open to a page I might be able to learn something. (Disclosure: I have learned nothing on this thread.)
Anyway the first thing I saw was "actions from the spiritual sky." So you see why I post this here. I am left with an urgent question the experts here should be able to answer. The book was sodden from our week long rain. So here is the question.
Did the rain come from a spiritual sky or from the real one? I did not have Largo's thesaurus for all words with me so I knew I would have to take action of my own sans answer.
When I shoved it down in my bag with the soggy plastic bags and condoms I thought, "How is this for action from the material ground?" I'd never actually voice such a non-spiritual thought, you realize.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 08:02am PT
|
Jstan: When you begin writing stuff like this, do you plan out how you are going to end up being committed to nothing?
I’m tempted to reply with, “non sequitur.” (To be committed to nothing would seem to imply no planning.)
Commitment is engagement. Anyone can be engaged with whatever is going on in front of them, phenomenally, in the here-and-now. (Some people call it being mindful, psychological presence, improvisation, wu wei, being awake, flow, dancing, etc.)
I think you’re focused on solipsism and nihilism, and I assume that you believe both are unfavorable. Some argue that Blake’s poem “The Tyger” resonates with nihilism and solipsism: viz., an incomprehensible creator engenders chaos, nihilistic polarities, and confusion.
It’s not what Blake says but *how* he says it that captures our attention. (Sophmores note solipsism and nihilism in every ethics class.)
There are things that cannot be defined accurately, finally, or completely. Look closely at Blake’s enigmatic poem, the paintings “The Scream” or “Starry Night,” or Sibelius’ No. 7, Brahms’ No. 1, or Mahler’s No. 7 symphonies). These “pictures” are worth a thousand words.
Critics and analysts provide interpretations of those works, but they are never equal to the things themselves.
I’m trying to point out the difference between artistic presentation and intellectual analysis. Both are different approaches to studies of what is, and both indicate different *kinds* visions of What Is.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 08:08am PT
|
Jstan: Anyway the first thing I saw was "actions from the spiritual sky."
It seems to me that you've taken a phrase out of a piece of writing and ignored the context and the object of the conversation.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 09:42am PT
|
Warning: avg post-modernist types will find the following tedious.
For rare-blend science types only...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Assumptions:
(1) Intelligence is the product of information processing.
(2) Information processing (systems) will continue to improve.
Result:
Intelligence (AGI, ANI) will continue to advance.
In time, human-level intelligence will be achieved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0962biiZa4
In creating AGI are we creating consciousness? (Chalmers)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 03:06pm PT
|
Disclosure: I have learned nothing on this thread
Hey John, bet you didn't know sublime meant terror to those old Londoners! Or that it's unlikely a Hilbert space describing no-thingness or qualia is possible, although JL's CalTech Prodigies might think otherwise!
But seriously, I've been engaged in this thread for several years and have altered my thinking on subjects like free will and awareness vs consciousness and neuroscience. I've also picked up some interesting tidbits about quantum physics from Ed's posts.
;>)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 03:33pm PT
|
Consciousness can never ever be created since it is eternally manifest.
It's already there even before the whole cosmic manifestation.
Modern science is totally clueless to the roots of consciousness and what to speak of what consciousness even is.
Due to the FACT they foolishly stick to material nature is all in all.
Sticking to their ridiculous bondage of materialism is all is the root of all problems in the material world period!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 03:36pm PT
|
^^^ See what I mean, jstan? Where else can you find original thinking of this caliber on ST?
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 03:50pm PT
|
Mr Braun, according to your world view, what is the point of physical existence if all of its manifestations, strivings, and outcomes are stupid, futile, and missing the point of consciousness?
Is this way of thinking not just a nihilistic cop-out to avoid responsibility and accountability for one's actions in this only space where we are endowed with sensory input?
If you believe the expanse and greatness of consciousness is beyond our perception and understanding, then by definition isn't such a belief based on no information and logically likely to be as much of a lie or a fantasy as any other thing we envision, for example the possibility that the universe exists to create 69 perfect ice cream cones formed of chicken bones and crushed velvet? If you believe it is within the scope of our understanding, then are you not just saying there is a higher plane subject to sensory exploration and it is a meritocracy of who gets to be aware of it and be admitted to it? Sorry to all the spiritually color blind people out there, you are not welcome. Therefore this expansive consciousness is not welcoming to all, is not all loving, and one might question why we would strive to become one with it. Are we just dogs trying to get closer to our master who keeps us locked in a closet, and we somehow know or hope that the master loves us and it would be good for us to escape the locked closet and join him/her/it whatever our master might be, whatever intentions he/she/it might have for us?
I'm not ready to deny the existence of a higher consciousness, but I'm not ready to deny my present existence in pursuit of it. In the words of Bob Marley: "If you know what good life is worth, you would look for yours right here on Earth."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 03:57pm PT
|
Do you like being in jail?
What is the point of putting people in jail?
The whole point of material creation is to get out of jail ......
The gross materialists think jail is all in all and love it there.
But Papillion escaped.
Only rare few see ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 04:10pm PT
|
It’s not what Blake says but *how* he says it that captures our attention.
You may be thinking of Jabberwocky.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2017 - 05:03pm PT
|
Thanks HFCS....
For the first part I was unimpressed with the brilliant minds giving superficial answers to problems of artificial intelligence, and I was disappointed to see nobody making connections between how to raise human children and how to instill values in AIs. They are all coming at it from the perspective of emotionally stunted scientists who overcompensate with their analytical sides.
They hint at the issues of solving human ethical problems and societal/political problems as a prerequisite to being safe from AIs... one person went so far as making an analogy to developing nuclear bombs and emailing it to everyone... in my mind this came closest to addressing the real problem. We will have bazillions of AIs seeking to exapnd their access to computing resources (as much as people can create computer viruses and beyond when they become self replicating), and we have no way to control how each AI is trained, what it's values and objectives are. These scientists are living in a dream world talking about guidelines for how to make them safe, when governments are going to be killing people to get access to ones that are specifically NOT safe.
The only thing that really surprised me, that was a novel concept I have not previously entertained, was Elon Musk's response. I know little about him but my respect grew as a result of his answer.
At first I thought he was another scientist plagued by narrow scope and vision... he was talking about the limitation in bandwidth we have to communicate what is in our brains to a digital world... we are limited by how fast our meat stick fingers can type, or how fast we speak... so he was talking about fitting an interface to our brains to increase the rate at which we can communicate information outbound from our brains. My jaded filter thought "ok laying the seeds for the next startup... (snore)".
But then he talked about the real danger being the asymmetric distribution of the technology, where if just a few people have access to the super-human intelligence that they will have world dominion. So his focus was on the widespread distribution of the technology and the high bandwidth interfaces, and this scenario will lead to a balance of power at least similar to what we have today with collective will and ability to govern, and perhaps it might even be more fair with more ability to exchange and process information.
That was probably the most wise thing I heard from the stage. But I see it as also something that will almost certainly be prevented by the folks in power in our pre-super-intelligence days. So when we talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor our political problems accelerating that and automation technologies accelerating that... I hadn't even thought yet about the unequal distribution of intelligence that is going to quickly diverge at exponential rates. That level of intelligence, mixed with the human shortcomings of values and ethics, is frightening to me.
So I see a top requirement of AI research as ensuring we have FULLY intelligent entities, rather than domain-specific intelligent entities. Imagine a brilliant military tactician robot that wants to achieve the objectives of whomever programs it, but it has no sense of value for human life, no ability to recognize what are the things that humans consider worth dying for, or what constitutes a reasonable outcome for all human life, or whether the person who programmed it has values that are appropriate to exercise in our world. We need to invest more in human intelligence and understanding emotions, creating a real science out of raising our children:
 appropriate levels of defending their own boundaries while being respectful of others
respecting structures of authority but not being afraid to speak out and seek explanation when it doesn't seem to make sense
We are soooooo far off in this domain right now, that it is truly horrifying to think of creating superbeings the morality and ethical limitations learned from our collective emotional health and parenting skills.
Will a smart AI develop so quickly that it will discern these things without being pointed in the right direction and overcome our limitations and become compassionate? Are there basins of attraction where they just need to be pointed roughly in the right direction and through iteration and feedback of experience they will discern what is "right" and what is "wrong" by learning to read facial expressions and assigning happy/sad/pain/frustration indexes and then trying to maximize outcomes? Or are there points of instability where nothing we do will drive toward the desired outcome because any perturbation such as one bad person or one bad government programming one AI sets off a chain of reactions and game theory compensations that make a stable peaceful outcome impossible?
In short, we are escalating our capacity to meddle with forces beyond our maturity to manage and I don't see any way it will stop no matter how many conferences or discussions we have about it. The thing is, the bad outcomes can evolve so rapidly that we will barely blink and notice after the fact when we are beyond screwed. It will be one day where people are saying "yeah yeah those tinfoil hat conspiracy theory scientists have been warning about this" and then suddenly it will be everywhere. Imagine a super-intelligence that has a goal of national defense, it is let loose on another country, and it quickly infects every Internet connected device on the planet, harnessing the processing power to break encryptions and hack more systems... And if it is truly sentient, air-gapped hard-wired networks won't be enough because individual humans can be coerced into activities that extend the control of a virtual intelligence.
Or imagine AIs fighting for resources across a planet of every Internet device infected, thousands of local criminal gangs blowing up exponentially in their capabilities and fighting for control... so many ways this can go bad, and so hard to envision good outcomes that are not co-opted by the human quest for power and control.
Taking into account the evils embedded in humanity, we can assume any technology we create can and will be used against us. We can't assure that an AI is created with knowledge of emotions and compassion and human values, even if that area is researched.
At best we might treat this like an arms race, like the race to get nukes first. Yes they will be used for evil, but put them in the hands of someone other than Hitler first! So maybe a union of concerned scientists would focus on developing the most advanced AI in secret and training it with the highest standard of ethics, morality, human awareness and compassion that we can, an openness to changing perspectives and programming that considers new input but never deletes the wisdom it has acquired from the past... in short, we should do our best to invent our benevolent dictator and overlord before a non-benevolent one takes power.
I wonder how much of a lead the NSA or other government organizations have in this arms race with miles of underground computer rooms, millions of computers, linked together, along with whatever can be harvested across the Internet today. I wonder if every government of the world is already in this race, along with top criminal organizations.
We need to make sure we get the Dalai Lama in the room with whomever has access to the most CPUs. Before it's too late!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!